Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hong Kong action cinema/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:58, 25 November 2009 [1].
Hong Kong action cinema[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Zzzzz, Michael Wells, WP:Film, WP:China, WP:HK, Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts
I am nominating this featured article for review because it seems to fail criteria 1.(c) in several areas. Several parts of the article are tagged with the [citation needed] tag. Some entire paragraphs contain no citations, such as the second paragraph in ""New School" wuxia", the fourth paragraph in "The 1970s kung fu wave", the second in "Bruce Lee", and the third in "Jackie Chan and the kung fu comedy". The "Influence in the West" section has no citations and has been tagged with a banner at the top for months at the top banner seeking help with no major additions being made. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image check OK but alt text required. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why some of these images are used in the article. Showing a poster for that Bruce Lee film for example does not suggest it was the first Hong Kong film shot in the US nor does the Twins Effect one at the bottom showcase that there is a lot of CGI in the film. I'd say these images should be removed or replaced with images that relate to the text better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Eubulides (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is missing a lot of reliable sources per WP:V, it will definitely be de-listed and reassessed to class C if those issues are not addressed within the duration of this FA review. Tavatar (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, three edits since the FAR was initiated, large uncited sections and numerous MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist far too much unsourced content. An entire section has been tagged as unreferenced since February, and it does not appear any improvement is in the works. Other less significant issues: I'm not sure I buy some of the FU rationales, over half the existing book citations do not provide page numbers, and citations lack both formatting and consistency. Maralia (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.